‘PEC should explain why hopefuls receive eligibility cert’
There should be a legal requirement for the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) to reveal their decisions when it awards the Certificate of Eligibility, said law professor Thio Li-ann.
She was one of two speakers at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) forum on the Roles, Responsibilities and Power of the Elected President on Friday.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam was the other speaker at the forum moderated by Professor Tommy Koh.
Professor Thio said the committee should explain their decisions on who qualifies to obtain the eligibility certificate, reported The Straits Times.
"And it shouldn't be (just) one line," she said, adding that it should also interview the candidates before coming to a decision.
The current committee comprises Public Service Commission chairman Eddie Teo; Chan Lai Fung, who is the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority chairman; and Sat Pal Khattar, a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.
Under the Presidential Election Act, the PEC evaluates the traits of potential candidates to ascertain whether they are people of integrity, good character and reputation, and also if they have sufficient experience and ability in managing financial affairs.
Professor Thio said whether a person is "of integrity, good character and reputation" is "a very subjective criterion".
"I think one way to improve it is by imposing a legal duty on PEC to give reasons for its decisions."
In the 2005 election, the committee had rejected the application of former JTC Corporation chief financial officer Andrew Kuan because his position and seniority in JTC were "not comparable to those mentioned in the Constitution".
The decision of the PEC is final, and is not subject to an appeal or review in court.
Professor Thio also pointed out other concerns, saying that Presidential hopefuls could be "potentially defamed as someone with poor character". However, the committee cannot be sued for libel unless malice can be proven.
Therefore, she argued that there could be a need to "improve the system" by allowing the right to reply or giving the potential candidates the chance to have an interview with the committee.
"It doesn't have to be open door, but in Singapore where reputation is so important, the reputation of candidates must also be protected."
However, Law Minister K. Shanmugam emphasised that the PEC plays an important role as it weeds out "obviously incapable" candidates but this does not mean all candidates who get the certificate are "equal".
He noted that the PEC acts as a mechanism to say that "these are not obviously incapable people, that they meet certain minimum requirements".
"Beyond that, it is up to the electorate to choose the person who persuades them that he is best suited for the position," said the minister.
Therefore, the committee limits the consequences of such a popularity contest at least to "people who are not inherently unqualified."
